Send private feed email by email

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds value beyond those flags by stating it 'Changes account state', that a confirm=true guard is required, and that 'OAuth integrations require podcasts:write' – an auth-scope requirement the annotations do not carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no filler; the state-change and confirm constraints are front-loaded after the purpose. The repetition of 'by email' twice and the vagueness of the phrase keep it from being maximally tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent write with a fully documented 5-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential call requirements: the mutation, the confirm guard, and the OAuth scope. It stops short of clarifying the email-addressing behavior or the relationship to the sibling send tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the semantics of 'confirm', 'account', and both prefixed IDs, so the schema carries the burden. The description only restates the confirm requirement and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('private feed email'), so the core operation is clear. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the close sibling 'podcasts_send_private_feed_email' or explain what the 'by email' addressing mode changes, so an agent must infer the split from the schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'requires confirm=true for the user-requested action' gives a concrete precondition for invocation, which is real usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over 'podcasts_send_private_feed_email' or the private-feed retrieval tools, so the routing decision is left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.